linux-kernel - Re: [QUESTION FOR ARM64 TLB] performance issue and implementation difference of TLB flush

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b30aa10f-7abc-11a0-552d-56fc88d534f7@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2023 11:16:18 +0800
From:   Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
To:     x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>,
        Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Feiyang Chen <chenfeiyang@...ngson.cn>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [QUESTION FOR ARM64 TLB] performance issue and implementation
 difference of TLB flush

Hi all!

On 2023/5/5 20:28, Gang Li wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I found that in `ghes_unmap` protected by spinlock, arm64 and x86 have
> different strategies for flushing tlb.
> 
> # arm64 call trace:
> ```
> holding a spin lock
> ghes_unmap
>   clear_fixmap
>    __set_fixmap
>     flush_tlb_kernel_range
> ```
> 
> # x86 call trace:
> ```
> holding a spin lock
> ghes_unmap
>   clear_fixmap
>    __set_fixmap
>     mmu.set_fixmap
>      native_set_fixmap
>       __native_set_fixmap
>        set_pte_vaddr
>         set_pte_vaddr_p4d
>          __set_pte_vaddr
>           flush_tlb_one_kernel
> ```
>
> arm64 broadcast TLB invalidation in ghes_unmap, because TLB entry can be
> allocated regardless of whether the CPU explicitly accesses memory.
> 
> Why doesn't x86 broadcast TLB invalidation in ghes_unmap? Is there any
> difference between x86 and arm64 in TLB allocation and invalidation 
> strategy?
> 

I found this in Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer
Manuals:

> 4.10.2.3 Details of TLB Use
> Subject to the limitations given in the previous paragraph, the
> processor may cache a translation for any linear address, even if that
> address is not used to access memory. For example, the processor may
> cache translations required for prefetches and for accesses that result
> from speculative execution that would never actually occur in the
> executed code path.

Both x86 and arm64 can cache TLB for prefetches and speculative
execution. Then why are their flush policies different?

Thanks,
Gang Li